posted
Recenlty, Harry Potter author J K Rowling added to the "extras" section of her website a short essay, titled For Girls Only, Probably.... This essay implores young women to worry more about developing into nice people rather than thin ones. She also notes that the term "fat" is a very potent insult for adolescent females:
quote: '"Fat" is usually the first insult a girl throws at another girl when she wants to hurt her,' I said; I could remember it happening when I was at school, and witnessing it among the teenagers I used to teach.
An article by Simon Walters in Britain's Sunday Mail questions whether or not Rowling practices what she preaches, pointing out that almost all of her sympathetic female characters are thin (particularly as they are represented in the movies), and also noting suggesting that readers:
quote: Imagine a childrens book where the attractiveness of the heroine is established in the first chapter by comparing her with another female character who is revoltingly fat, stupid and violent. On top of that, the fat girl spends most of her energies to bullying and beating up the slimmer, brighter heroine—with the support of the fat girl’s parents. Judging from her remarks last week about our ‘skinny-obsessed world’, J.K. Rowling would be the first to condemn such a book for brainwashing young people into thinking thin means beauty and brains, while fat means ugly and brainless.
But change the sex of the characters in the novel mentioned above and you have Rowling’s own brilliant creation, Harry Potter. The fat boy is of course Dudley. The slim and attractive boy is Harry.
I have a few thoughts on this: although I am a fan of the Harry Potter books, I'm not totally happy with the way that Rowling portrays women. While she deserves kudos for portraying some pretty cool strong women in her books (I so hope that her next series has a cool central female heroine), in general, I find that the "nice" women are all pretty or pleasantly homely (with the exception of Harry's heterosexual love interests who seem to have a "natural" physical beauty), while the evil women are either ugly or femme fatale types (either not objects of the heterosexual male gaze, or hypersexual).
I would also agree with Simon Walter's that Rowlings's portrayal of Dudley Dursley isn't exactly body-positive, suggesting that "fatness" is somehow associated with "nastiness," and that this is a model that is potentially very harmful to young male readers in particular. I disagree, however, that reversing the genders of the characters would result in an exactly analogous situation.
Importantly, Harry's skinniness is not sexualised in any way-- it's primary benefit to him is that it stands him in good stead during Quidditch (as does the stocky build of the Weasley twins). Although she doesn't explicitly state it, Rowling's short piece really addresses thin women being posited as sexual ideals (and therefore as ideal women). I've addressed in another thread the problems that many people (in my opinion, women in particular) are faced with in terms of valuing ourselves in terms of (hetero)sexual attractiveness, and while I don't think Rowling's opinions are completely free of that sentiment (she uses the fact that a "sane" male is perplexed by female weight-obsession to back up her argument), I think that she is certainly reacting to a certain extent of sexualisation and objectification of women's bodies that males (such as her own Harry Potter) don't have to contend with in such a high degree.
So: If there are any Potter fans out there, how do you think characterisation of the body and skinniness would be different if Harry was Harriet?
More generally, to everyone: What do you think of this situation in general? Does J K Rowling have a double standard, or is she simply talking about a different phenomenon to the Harry/Dudley situation?
I'm not a diehard fan of Harry Potter, but I've read all but the most recent book and have watched the movies that have come out.
I applaud Ms. Rowling for bringing this message to girls, as she's doubtless admired by many of them. The article you cited DOES have a point.. however, I really don't think this was the author's intent. Also, in the movies of course the best looking people that suited the descriptions of the characters were selected.. that sells, after all!
All in all, I'd say take it for what it is. I'm glad that Rowling is focusing on the very real issue of "skinny obsession", even if the work of fiction she has written sometimes deviates.
Thanks for letting me share!
Posts: 4636 | From: USA/Northern Europe | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
JK made an excellent and acceptable point in a stand against the media's portrayal of 'skinny=good!' I personally emailed Simon Walters after reading his article on sunday morning. I almost choked to death on my porridge when i read it! Being a die hard Harry Potter fan two things bothered me about his article.
He claims Hermione is 'trim and ravishing' which is never mentioned in the books and he managed to omitt the fact that both Hagrid and Molly Weasley are larger and they are quite clearly not evil in the slightest. As for evil skinny characters there are indeed plenty in the books such as Malfoy, Snape and Bellatrix Lestrange. Walters should have researched his book material evidence more thoroughly. On the otherhand if he is referring to characterisations of Hermione Granger and Ginny Weasley by Bonny Wright and Emma Watson who are both slim and beautiful then the casting directors are the ones at whom he should be speaking out. No where does JK describe the figures of Hermione or Ginny.
Secondly he attacked JK for her worries over her two daughters. I have never seen pictures of Mackenzie but have seen one picture of Jessica and she's really very pretty. Now for JK to speak out about this in concern for her daughters she must be very concerned. She often makes it no secret that she speaks out against things that bother her. The media does portray skinny as beautiful. Everywhere young girls look there are skinny, almost skeletal, girls like Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan and young girls idolise them which is not always good for them as yes it does cause some paranoia in young kids. I would be horrified if Amy Leigh turned around one day and said to me 'auntie Emma do i look fat?' when she's the skinniest little thing already!
In the middle ages and and even up to the stuarts time period, curvaceousness in a woman was a sign of health, fertilty and wealth. It was only later on in the victorian and edwardan times that women were expected to have a waist the size of an eggcup and so forced themselves to have one.
People like JK Rowling who want to promote a healthy body image should not be attacked by journalists for doing so. It is concern for their children that often drives them to speak out and i thoroughly admire JK Rowling for doing so. If her books sometimes deviate from what she says, then fine. She writes the world of Harry Potter how she wants it to be, but her range of characters is diverse and always growing with different characters all the time. I have nothing against naturally slim people nor against those who do suffer from eating disorders. However, the portrayal by the media is not good and I for one will stand by her if she wants to promote the curvaceousness of women everywhere as a healthy thing.
Posts: 228 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by guiltyangel210: I for one will stand by her if she wants to promote the curvaceousness of women everywhere as a healthy thing.
I think what I would say personally is that I'd support the idea that there is a diverse range of healthy female bodies. It's important to remember that there are some women who are naturally quite skinny, and in those women, it's perfectly healthy, just as being more voluptuous will be healthy for another. The problem is that "skinny" is promoted as the ideal.
One thing that I do have a problem with in Rowling's essay is the bit at the end where she refers to all skinny obsessed girls as "stupid." While I certainly think the whole cultural ideal is stupid, I have met enough intelligent, non-superficial women who have suffered from eating disorders in the past to think that the whole issue is a bit more complex than simply stupidity. Of course, on a more positive side, it does remind me of Mary Wollstonecraft pointing out how women are brought up to behave as though they are stupid, even when they are not, to keep them in a subjugated position.
Posts: 2710 | From: Australia | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am not a diehard fan of Harry Potter, but I am getting ready to say something very controversial here. If someone is overweight, there is no direct correlation with being a nasty person. However, in a world where so many people are lacking for basic necessities, there is something to be said for greed, whether it be in eating much more than you need to sustain your life or consuming way too much electricity, being an unattractive trait. Yes, obesity can be genetic, but in many (most?) cases it is not. Being of slightly plump/average weight and lower is actually healthier. So while it is not good to put pressure on people to be stick-thin, I feel like a slight discouragement from obesity is not the worst thing in the world. Of course, I should admit I am a skinny chick myself, which undoubtedly influences my opinion...
Posts: 193 | From: Massachusetts | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, that's a falsehood (depending on what you mean by obesity).
Severe, GROSS obesity is still often *influenced* to a big degree by genetics, but it WOULD be pushing it to say it's entirely so in many people who are morbidly obese. However, most people's basic shape and size, when they're in decent health -- and do realize that people of size can and plenty of times do eat the same way and get as much activity as their smaller counterparts, mobility issues taken into account --IS primarily determined by genetics. And that's not just for folks who are " a little plump." (There was an interesting study some time back, proably could be found with a simple search, that investigated this by following sets of twins through their lives, and it validated the clear weight -- no pun intended -- of genetics on body shape and size.)
Absolutely: anyone who vols here at ST is going to agree with you that it's seriously important to encourage people to both have a healthy, sound lifestyle and to live as ethically as possible per sharing resources.
But I'm sure that no one was even addressing gross obesity here, instead, what was being discussed was a focus on hyper-thinness -- outside the bounds of health -- SOLELY for appearance's/fashion's sake, and the effect that can have on girls. And that hyperfocus and ideal is no more healthy than its opposite.
-------------------- Heather Corinna, Executive Director & Founder, Scarleteen About Me • Get our book! Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. - Margaret Mead Posts: 63686 | From: An island near Seattle | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, well I'm aware hyper-thinness was the original topic, it's just someone brought up the issue of the portrayal of Dudley being unfair, and I was providing a counterpoint. We've all seen on the news how moderate and gross obesity is much more prevelant in us, england, and china than the developing world.
I guess something to keep in mind with the hyper-thinness issue then, is that there can be a backlash. I am very thin (not quite supermodel, but for my larger bone-frame def thin), and I personally don't feel many real people think being skinny is attractive. Perhaps some women believe that, but I only know one guy who does. And I personally have faced a tiny bit of stigmitization from being skinny -like people making fun of it. I wish more work was done to attack the beauty standards that focus on physical characteristics people cannot control, such as proportions and faceshape.
It is interesting that when I was a younger girl and read fashion magazines I was very concerned with not putting on weight -I did go through a brief eating-disorder phase. Now that I am older I really don't do anything other than eat a healthy diet (I eat a lot, mind you). However, I feel that having defined curves and having certain facial proportions (a study found ''attractive'' women have the face-shape of a typical 14 yr-old girl) are far more influencing factors than being thin in what make women attractive to potential male and female partners. These latter expectations are really no fairer to women, but for some reason receive far less media attention than the issue of ''thinness''.
If Harry was Harriet, described as severely skinny the way Harry is, I envision her being more of a tomboy figure than attractive in a sexual way. But that is just my take...
And I definately think that if the Harry were a female, there wouldn't be much difference. An excellent point was made above about Hagrid and Mrs. Weasley being overweight and still very pleasant.
In the books, if I remember correctly, Harry was described as not being particularly good-looking (unruly black hair, malnurioushed, and awkwardly skinny and gangly). And as mentioned above, Hermione was NOT overly thin or even considered very pretty at all. Again, it's the work of the casting directors to choose people who look the best while still fitting the physical characteristics.
That's an issue to take up with them. After all, once Rowling gave them rights to use her story in the movie, she has little control over the specifics.
Posts: 4636 | From: USA/Northern Europe | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Part of the reason...logically...that Harry probably ended up so think was that for the better part of his first 11 years of life he was stowed under a staircase and often not allowed to eat meals. His "super-skinniness" in the book is likely a product of malnutrition. I don't see Rowling as using this as a statement on thinness in any way, but using it as a physical way of reinforcing the mistreatment he received at the Dursleys. After all...when his skinniness is first described it is further exaggerated by pointing out that the hand-me-downs from Dudley that he is wearing don't fit him at all...making the point that Harry is allowed little to account for his most basic needs....whereas Dudly is spoiled. When I was reading the books I didn't even register the thinness/obesity as a good/bad point....I read it as a way of direct comparison as to the difference in the way the Durlseys treated the two boys.
Posts: 96 | From: Illinois | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by likewhoa19: If Harry was Harriet, described as severely skinny the way Harry is, I envision her being more of a tomboy figure than attractive in a sexual way. But that is just my take...
quote:Originally posted by Miss Lauren: And I definately think that if the Harry were a female, there wouldn't be much difference. An excellent point was made above about Hagrid and Mrs. Weasley being overweight and still very pleasant.
I guess my question is WOULD Harry (and his skinniness) be portrayed in the same way if he was a girl? Likewhoa19, you make an interesting point in noting that the female Harry (if every other word in the text was exactly the same) would be a "tomboy"-- thus not seen as "normal" for a girl-- and unfortunately, what is "normal" for a girl is usually some kind of (hetero)sexualised ideal. This does point out that while Harry's skinniness is not viewed as sexually attractive in either case, in the female Harry's case, she's judged in relation to a sexualised model of femininity, while the male Harry is simply a vaguely unconventionally attractive male who nonetheless does not have his gendered identity questioned.
(Incidentally, the representation of males in young adult and children's fiction is the subject of an anthology of academic essays titled "Ways of being Male" (ed. John Stephens, Routledge 2002)-- In this anthology an academic named Perry Nodelman has a paper in which he discusses the implications of switching a nice male protagonist with a female-- when this situation was posited to his students in relation to a different novel, they almost always started out by insisting that a gender switch wouldn't make any difference, but the longer they analysed the text, the more they realised how inappropriate the gender switch would have seemed to them if they had just picked the book up randomly).
Posts: 2710 | From: Australia | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by guiltyangel210: I for one will stand by her if she wants to promote the curvaceousness of women everywhere as a healthy thing.
I think what I would say personally is that I'd support the idea that there is a diverse range of healthy female bodies. It's important to remember that there are some women who are naturally quite skinny, and in those women, it's perfectly healthy, just as being more voluptuous will be healthy for another. The problem is that "skinny" is promoted as the ideal.
Beppie I agree with you. The diversity of women all over the world should be acknowledged. But, the media only ever portray skinny as good. Women who are naturally slim and toned are often percieved as 'lucky' to be that way. It is that attitude which causes young girls and boys as young as nine or ten to believe they are over weight if they deviate even slightly from what the media shows to be normal and acceptable, when in reality they are perfectly normal in regards to their height and bone structure. It is the people who feel they need to starve themselves to death because of how super models and film stars are (who themselves are highly influenced by the areas within which they work) that need telling that voluptuous and curvy is just as beautiful as naturally slim.
Posts: 228 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by guiltyangel210: [QUOTE]Beppie I agree with you. The diversity of women all over the world should be acknowledged. But, the media only ever portray skinny as good. Women who are naturally slim and toned are often percieved as 'lucky' to be that way. It is that attitude which causes young girls and boys as young as nine or ten to believe they are over weight if they deviate even slightly from what the media shows to be normal and acceptable, when in reality they are perfectly normal in regards to their height and bone structure. It is the people who feel they need to starve themselves to death because of how super models and film stars are (who themselves are highly influenced by the areas within which they work) that need telling that voluptuous and curvy is just as beautiful as naturally slim.
Absolutely, this is very true-- if you look at a lot of my recent posts you'll see how much I agree with that . I made that comment, however, because we've frequently seen on these boards the attitude that "unconventional body type A is good because conventionally popular body type B is actually bad"-- I simply wanted to avoid going down that comparative path.
I will also say, though, that just as I recall, in my teens, my larger peers and even average size peers (including my average sized self) being taunted for their weight, I also recall my naturally skinny (and totally healthy) peers being taunted as "anorexic." I'd think it a huge shame if acknowledgement that larger body types can still be cool and healthy (with less of a focus on these bodies as sexual objects) if it simply meant that women with naturally smaller bodies ended up all being labelled as "anorexics" (certainly demeaning the psychological trauma of actual anorexics) or "stupid girls" (referring to the Rowling essay).
posted
I suppose that the only way to actually change the convention of skinny=good is for the media to actually show that whatever size or shape you actually are you are fine that way. In britain this has already been started by the Dove campaign who used 'real' women in their adverts for body scrubs and moisturisers. However, even this was criticised by newspapers when it was revealed that these 'real' women were actually models in the first place. If they had thought about it in a distinct way, despite the eight or so women being employed as full or part time models, they were not 'conventional' models. They ranged from size eight to size 16 and still paraded around in their underwear, which, when exposed to adverts of this type, teenagers and young children inevitbly see that all shapes and sizes are beautiful.
Posts: 228 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yet even in the Dove campaign (which is pretty much all over the western world, I think), the women are all fairly close to a conventional image of female beauty. It's a step in the right direction, but really only a baby step, particularly since they're "beauty" is tied up pretty strongly with their image as "sexy." The ad didn't contain any women who could be classed as fat, certainly. Really, I think it just expands (excuse the pun) the image of what is socially acceptable, rather than smashing the idea that a woman has to make her body conform to an ideal of social acceptability.
Posts: 2710 | From: Australia | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
For that matter, I don't think the Dove campaign shows a very (naturally) thin or angular-looking woman in there, either.
In fact the "Real Women Have Curves" slogan right there seems to say that women who are naturally lanky, angular, NOT curvy perhaps aren't real.
(Some years back, I wrote a piece on body acceptance elsewhere that I called "Dangerous Curves," a title which in just a couple of months, I almost instantly regretted. Mind, I did talk about women who were NOT "curvy" as well, and didn't suggest women who were not were not women, but still. It's so easy to bungle this stuff, without even thinking about it, and while attempting to be inclusive and accepting of all sizes AND shapes.)
"Beauty" and defining beauty is really wherew we get into trouble with this stuff. Whetner we say beauty is thin, or beauty is curvy, that anyone is saying, what beauty is at ALL when it comes to appearance, when it comes to broad standards, is where a big part of the problem lies, compunded, of course, by the fact that being found beautiful -- usually meaning sexually attractive to a good number of people -- is a status issue at all.
-------------------- Heather Corinna, Executive Director & Founder, Scarleteen About Me • Get our book! Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. - Margaret Mead Posts: 63686 | From: An island near Seattle | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think Harry's weight (if he were Harriet) would be any more or less important. It's just what it is--it says many times in the books that Harry was thin because his family was cheap and didn't want to feed him, not because he thought it'd be sexy or attractive to look that way.
Also, Rowling's portrayal of the characters in general doesn't say much about their weight or how attractive they are physically. Good people are good regardless of their size, and bad people are bad regardless of their size.
Dudley is mean and fat, Hagrid is loving and huge. Madame Maxine is literally a giant and described as being attractive. I think that since it's a book and Rowling doesn't actually say very much about the characters' appearance, people envision them however they want. But her portrayal of women as a whole is very positive--Hermione, Prof. McGonagall, Harry's mother, Mrs. Weasley, Tonks, Ginny, etc. are all characters whose personalities are far more important than their looks.
The only notably "attractive" or "unattractive" characters are all side characters--like Madame Rosmerta (the school boys have a crush on her), Cho Chang (Harry's temporary love interest), Fleur Delacour, Moaning Myrtle, Eloise Midgen, the Patil sisters, etc.
-------------------- disconnect and let me drift/until my upside down is right side *in* Posts: 640 | From: The Valley of the Sun, AZ, USA | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
Copyright 1998, 2013 Heather Corinna/Scarleteen
Scarleteen.com: Providing comprehensive sex education online to teens and young adults worldwide since 1998
Information on this site is provided for educational purposes. It is not meant to and cannot substitute for advice or care provided by an in-person medical professional. The information contained herein is not meant to be used to diagnose or treat a health problem or disease, or for prescribing any medication. You should always consult your own healthcare provider if you have a health problem or medical condition.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
. I made that comment, however, because we've frequently seen on these boards the attitude that "unconventional body type A is good because conventionally popular body type B is actually bad"-- I simply wanted to avoid going down that comparative path.
Printer-friendly view of this topic